Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202428974)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428974

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

28 July 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of mice infestations.
2. record keeping.
3. the complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy that began on 8 June 2010. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the second floor.
The landlord provided records to us regarding mice infestations from January 2024. On 2 January 2024 the resident reported there were mice in the ceiling, and this was causing her panic attacks and anxiety. The landlord arranged for pest control to attend on 8 January 2024. They found evidence of droppings and baited the living room and kitchen. Following 3 further reports by the resident, the pest contractor attended again. They advised they had found minor droppings in the ceiling but no dead mice in the property.
The resident made a complaint on 2 September 2024 because:
1. she had no contact from the landlord when reporting an ongoing mice infestation.
2. she wanted the dead mice in her ceiling to be removed and any remaining infestation to be eradicated.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 September 2024. It issued its stage 1 response on 29 October 2024 and said:
1. it had reviewed the outcome of the latest pest control visit (22 October 2024), and the contractor found no evidence of mice infestations.
2. it had referred the work required to seal the hatch in the ceiling to its contractor who would be in touch with her directly by 28 October 2024.
3. it acknowledged it had delayed in issuing its response. And that this would have frustrated the resident.
4. it offered the resident £150 compensation for the delay in addressing her concerns, issuing its response, and the associated frustration.
The resident escalated her complaint on the same day because:
1. there had been an ongoing issue with mice since 2015, and the compensation did not reflect the impact of this issue over a protracted period.
2. she had not reported any issues with the ceiling hatch. The landlord’s comments in relation to this demonstrated it was not listening to her complaint.
3. she wanted it to put in place a monitoring programme for the pests as this had stopped from June 2024.
4. she felt the landlord had not communicated with her and delayed in responding to her concerns.
5. the issue was impacting her well-being and that of her children.
6. she had concerns the landlord was not going to escalate her complaint as it had done this previously.
The resident subsequently accepted the compensation, and the landlord closed the complaint. However, she asked it to escalate her complaint again on 8 November 2024. She added:
1. a former officer, who stopped working for the landlord, had been monitoring and helping to resolve the pest issues. But this had stopped abruptly without communication in June 2024. And she was only notified because she called the contractor directly, that the monitoring was no longer being requested by the landlord.
2. she had put in several complaints about this, and they had never been moved from stage 1 of the complaints process.
The landlord acknowledged her escalation request on 12 November 2024. It issued its stage 2 response on 24 December 2024. It said:
1. it had reviewed the pest control visits between July and October 2024 and liaised with the pest contractor. And it found the rodent activity was minimal and no further action was required.
2. it would arrange for its contractor to reattend given that the resident said the issue was ongoing.
3. it considered it had taken appropriate steps to address the issue but would continue to conduct further visits as required.
4. it noted it had tried to seal the ceiling hatch, but the appointment was cancelled by the resident. If the work was outstanding it could rearrange this.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 3 April 2025 because:
1. the issues with pest infestations had been ongoing since 2015, and she did not feel the compensation reflected the distress caused over this protracted period.
2. her mental health was suffering as a result of the issue remaining unresolved.
3. the landlord had not taken any action since June 2024.
4. she wanted the landlord to eradicate the pest infestation or move her to an alternative property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from September 2023, which was 12 months before her complaint. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. Doing so provides the landlord a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident explained since 2015, that both her and her children’s wellbeing and day to day lives have been adversely impacted. She said she has suffered with depression, anxiety, lack of sleep. And that this has impacted her ability to stay in work and the children’s schooling.
While this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, we will consider if the landlord acted reasonably when she raised her concerns about this matter.

Record keeping

Part of the resident’s escalation request referred specifically to the landlord’s handling of the pest control ceasing abruptly around June 2024. As well as poor communications with her about the reasons for this. And delays in reattending and monitoring the situation.
As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord for evidence relating to the complaint. While the landlord has provided some evidence, it has failed to provide adequate repair records for the period of September 2023 and January 2024 about:
1. when the resident made her reports.
2. when it attended the resident’s property, and which of the resident’s reports it was responding to when it carried out these inspections.
3. its findings from the inspections and actions it was taking associated with its assessment of the mice infestations.
4. the communications it had with the resident during this time.
It has also not provided us with communications it had with the resident outside of the complaints process for the scope of this investigation. It is unclear if this is because it did not record its contact with her or did not share this information with us. Nonetheless this hampered our ability to assess whether it communicated with her about her reports in a reasonable and meaningful way.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs, and communications with residents. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ abilities to identify, determine liability for, and respond to problems when they arise.
The lack of contemporaneous evidence provided by the landlord means it has not been able to demonstrate that it acted fairly and reasonably when responding to the resident’s reports. Nor has it demonstrated that it acted in accordance with the standards expected in the tenancy agreement and its policy and procedures during September 2023 and January 2024. We have therefore found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Pest infestations

The landlord’s pest control policy places an obligation on it to treat mice in blocks of flats, including communal areas as well as individual flats if there is evidence the pests have accessed the building through a building defect. The landlord also commits to inspecting properties, notifying residents of the outcomes of its inspections, detailing any work required and providing timescales for this. As well as carrying out necessary pest related work and/or treatments in a timely manner.
Between 2 January 2024 and 3 October 2024, the resident made 6 reports about pest infestations as follows:
1. on 2 January 2024 the resident reported having panic attacks and being anxious because there were mice at the property.
2. on 23 June 2024 the resident reported mice were still present at the property.
3. on 15 August 2024 the resident asked for the landlord’s help because there were still traps in the ceiling left by the former pest contractor.
4. on 2 September 2024 as part of the resident’s complaint she said there were still live and dead mice in the property, and she wanted them removed.
5. on 3 October 2024 the resident reported an ongoing issue with mice in the ceiling.
6. on 29 October 2024 as part of her complaint communications she said there were ongoing issues with dead mice in the ceiling, and she wanted the landlord to monitor this via its pest contractor. She also said that the issue was impacting her work, day to day enjoyment of the property, her mental health and her children’s schooling.
The landlord:
1. arranged for its pest control contractor to attend on:
  1. 8 January 2024 – the contractor found droppings behind the kitchen table and doorway to the hallway. It noted the resident had cleaned those left behind the sofa. They baited the living room and kitchen and recommended the landlord allow 14 days for eradication.
  2. 11 July 2023 – we have not been provided with contemporaneous evidence relating to this visit. However, the landlord has advised that pest control attended the property on this day.
  3. 23 July 2024 – the contractor said the resident advised them she had not made a report and there were no pest control issues. They said they were waiting for a work order from the landlord to inspect the communal areas.
  4. 20 August 2024 – the contractor checked the traps in the ceiling. They found the trap had “no catch in them”. And they did not find any dead rodents. But there was minor dropping inside the ceiling. There was no detail about any recommended treatment or monitoring plan in the report.
  5. 21 October 2024 – the contractor found the previous bait laid in the ceiling had minimal bait taken from it. They replaced this with fresh bait. They also said it considered this to be a block issue originating from the bin store area.
2. contacted its pest control contractor on 2 October 2024 for an updated position on the pest issue. They said that at the latest visit no rodents had been found. They also stated that the resident was waiting for the temporary hatch in the ceiling (used as an access point by the contractor) to be resolved. They also noted the bait stations were placed inside the ceiling by the former contractor.
3. raised a job to patch the resident’s ceiling on 28 October 2024. The landlord noted in its stage 2 response that the resident cancelled this appointment. She told the landlord at the time that she had not asked for this to be done because she wanted it to continue monitoring and treating the issue. The resident said to us she felt the landlord was trying to cover up the problem.
4. in its stage 2 response (24 December 2024) it said that the rodent activity was minimal, that it was willing to attend but did not believe further action was required at this time. Although it would conduct further visits as required.
Overall, we consider the landlord responded to the majority of the resident’s reports within 28 days. This was reasonable and timely in the circumstances. However, we note the resident’s reports on 2 September 2024 and 29 October 2024 did not result in any further investigation of the property. Given the evidence in the contractor’s findings around this time, had still found activity, albeit minimal, it is unclear why it did not take further action to continue to monitor and treat the issue. That it did not was a failure to progress the resident’s reports.
The landlord’s pest control policy commits to taking action where it finds there has been a building defect or entry via communal areas. It is unclear based on the evidence presented to us, what the landlord considered to be the cause of the mice infestation. Although it did conduct various inspections of the property, we found no evidence that it notified the resident of the outcome of these, explaining the cause of the issue, and which work was required to resolve this along with associated timeframes. As such, we could not be satisfied that:
1. it had conducted a proportionate investigation to identify and remedy the possible sources of the infestation.
2. it had communicated with the resident about its inspections and managed her expectations about what it would do, by when, and how frequently it would monitor the situation.
3. it acted in line with its pest control policy.
We note that during October 2024, the landlord’s contractor expressed an opinion that the cause may be the bin store area, which was 10 months after the resident’s initial report. Given the frequency of the inspections, we consider the landlord missed various opportunities to assess the cause of the pest infestation. This caused avoidable delay in working to resolve the infestation.
Further, the landlord did not provide us with any evidence of work it had undertaken following its contractor’s advice. It is unclear if this is because it did not take further action or because it failed to share these records with us. As such, we could not be satisfied it had taken reasonable steps to act on its contractor’s specialist opinion. That it did not was a failure to take appropriate action in the circumstances.
Given the frequency of the resident’s reports (as set out above), it is unclear why the landlord did not identify this as a recurring issue at an earlier opportunity. Had it done so, it could have considered arranging and coordinating an ongoing monitoring and treatment plan for the property. This would have mitigated the resident’s concerns and frustrations that it was not taking appropriate action to resolve the infestation. As well as the time and trouble it took her to report each recurrence. This lack of planned action would have contributed to the delay in resolving the overall infestation. And would have better managed the resident’s expectations about its approach.
Further, it is unclear why the landlord sought to patch the resident’s ceiling. There is no evidence we have seen that suggests the resident sought this as a resolution to her complaint. On the contrary, the resident’s communications were consistent in that she wanted it to continue monitoring and trying to eradicate the mice at her property. This was a failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the resident’s complaint. This caused her frustration and distress because she felt that the landlord was not listening to her.
We also note the resident had raised concerns about her wellbeing as part of her reports. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this. It ought to have referred her for further support, as a minimum, it could have signposted her to her GP for help. That it did not meant it could not demonstrate it acted reasonably when it responded to her concerns about her wellbeing.

Post complaint procedure

We recognise that the complaints team were working interdepartmentally with repairs and estates to arrange a survey of the property in early 2025. And that the landlord was continuing to send its pest contractor the property. However, by March 2025 the resident was continuing to chase the landlord for a resolution to the infestation. We note the resident is seeking to be moved to another property as a result of this. We recommend that the landlord gets in touch with the resident to discuss the options that are available to her.

Conclusion

We acknowledge that the landlord appropriately assumed responsibility for resolving the infestation, and instructed pest control accordingly. However, it missed opportunities to identify the cause of the infestation at the earliest opportunity. And there is no evidence that when it became aware of a potential cause, it took adequate steps to resolve this. The landlord’s approach was also resident led, meaning that it relied on her to make reports before it returned to the property.
Given the ongoing nature of pest infestations, it would have been reasonable to have set out a coordinated and ongoing plan to monitor and treat the infestation. This ought to have involved the consideration of scheduled follow up visits until the infestation was resolved. Which would have been resolution focused. And mitigated the time, trouble, and distress of the resident’s overall experience. It also failed to respond appropriately to her concerns about her wellbeing.
For these reasons, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
The landlord acknowledged in its formal responses that the resident had been caused concern and frustration because of the time it took to address the matter. It apologised and offered £150 compensation. However, it later set out that while there was frustration caused to the resident it had taken the required action to eradicate the issue and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. Taking into account the cumulative failures we found and the impact of these on the resident, we consider the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to address these.
To put things right, the landlord must apologise for the failures we found. And conduct vulnerability training for relevant staff members to ensure they are in the best position to support and signpost residents experiencing difficulties. It must also survey the property to ensure there are no required works to the resident’s property to prevent entry by the mice. In addition, it must write to the resident with its findings, including the believed cause of the mice, the steps it is taking to resolve this, and the associated timeframes for its monitoring and treatment programme. In addition, it must pay the resident an additional £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of its handling of the pest infestation.
This is in line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ for this level of finding.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must:
1. issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
2. issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint.
3. decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
4. accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. If a landlord decides not to accept a complaint it must be able to evidence its reasoning. Each complaint must be considered on its own merits. A complaints policy must set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered as a complaint or escalated, and these circumstances must be fair and reasonable to residents. Acceptable exclusions include matters that have previously been considered under the complaints policy.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response 40 working days after acknowledging the complaint. There is no evidence it explained its delay to the resident or tried to agree on a new timeframe for its response. This was a significant delay in issuing its response. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we could not conclude this was an unavoidable delay. This caused the resident time and trouble chasing her complaint and uncertainty about what the landlord was doing to progress it. As a direct result, it caused the resident to request her complaint be escalated before it responded.
In the resident’s escalation request, she expressed concerns over the landlord’s approach to the infestation during June 2024. She explained that communication and monitoring abruptly ended. We note that the landlord told the resident, after the complaint procedure was exhausted, that it would only look into the “past 12 months” and that it had responded to her concerns about this through a previous complaint.
The landlord made no mention of this in its stage 2 response. If the landlord intended not to accept an element of the resident’s complaint, it ought to have set this out and explained its reasoning to the resident with reference to the relevant policy and/or procedure. That it did not was a failure to follow the Code and set out its position on this element of her complaint.
The resident said that when she communicated with the complaints team, she expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. She said the landlord had told her that she either needed to accept the compensation and the case would be closed, or she could escalate the complaint. She told us that she thought if she escalated the complaint, she would not be able to accept the compensation it offered.
Having reviewed the evidence, the landlord’s response was ambiguous about whether the compensation was open to the resident if she escalated her complaint. This is because it said, “either you can accept the compensation and close the case, or you can escalate to Stage 2.” It was not suitably clear to the resident that she was able to accept the compensation and request an escalation. This was a failure to clearly communicate the options available to her. And this caused her uncertainty.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response 32 working days after the resident’s escalation request. There is no evidence it explained its delay or notified the resident it needed more time to answer the complaint. That it did not was an unreasonable delay and failure to follow the principles of the Code. This caused the resident further frustration and uncertainty because she felt the landlord was not progressing her complaint.

Conclusion

The landlord acknowledged its delay in responding to the resident’s stage 1 and awarded £50 to her in recognition of this. We also note it acknowledged its delay at stage 2, but did not increase its offer of compensation to address this. We consider this was disproportionate based on its findings. Further, it failed to account for the ambiguity in its communications around the compensation or to explain its decision not to respond to her concerns around its handling of the infestations during June 2024. As such, it failed to set out its position on this during the complaint procedure.
In light of this, we found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
To put things right the landlord must apologise, write to the resident confirming the reasons for its decision not to accept all the elements of her complaint. It must also pay the resident an additional £75 in recognition of its delay at stage 2 and the distress caused by the ambiguity over its offer of compensation and right to escalate her complaint. It must also evidence conducting complaint handling training in the last 6 months to ensure its staff are in the best position to respond to complaints in line with the timeframes and principles set out in the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestations.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. write to the resident to:
  1. apologise for the failures we found in this report.
  2. explain its decision not to accept her complaint about her concerns about its conduct during June 2024 concerning communications and mice infestations. It must reference any relevant policy and/or procedure to support this.
2. pay the resident £325 broken down as follows:
  1. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience of its handling of the pest infestations and
  2. £75 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience of its complaint handling.

This is in addition to the sums paid to the resident through the complaint procedure. If it has not done so already, the landlord must pay her the £150 it offered her.

Within 56 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must
1. conduct:
  1. vulnerability training with relevant staff members to ensure they are aware of the measures available to them to robustly act on and support residents expressing concerns over their wellbeing.
  2. complaint handling training with relevant staff members to ensure they understand the relevant obligations when responding to complaints, both when there are delays and when exempting elements of a resident’s complaint.
2. arrange for a qualified pest controller to survey the property and communal areas. The contractor must produce a report with its findings, setting out:

i. if there is a current mice infestation, and if applicable, it must set out the probable cause of this. The report must specifically comment on whether this is linked to any structural or communal entryways, with accompanying photographs.

ii. if applicable, recommendations on how to resolve the issue, including a monitoring and treatment plan with indicative costs and timescales for the completion of this.

the landlord must share the full report with the resident and the Ombudsman within 5 working days of receipt. As well as any associated monitoring and treatment schedule.

Recommendation

We recommend that the landlord provide advice and guidance to the resident about her rehousing options.